I’m Tired of Neo-Cons Being Tired of Conservatives (Rant alert)

Aw, Shucks southern News and Links ^ | 29 January 2004 | Jeff Adams

[robowombat]

I’m Tired of Neo-Cons Being Tired of Conservatives

Okay, so George Bush has shown that his ‘compassionate conservatism’ is really socialism with conservative lip service. Bush has proven that he is a liberal with a thin veneer of faux conservatism covering the big-government, big-spending core of his true self. So what? As ‘good conservatives’ we should ‘remain focused’ and pull that Republican lever in the voting booth no matter what our lying eyes tell us? That is what establishment Republicans want their conservative base to do: “Sit down, shut up, and vote as we, the enlightened, anointed insiders tell you to.” Mind you, they don’t want you, the conservatives, the citizens that have remained true to the American Ideals of the founders, to think about how they are using you and are selling you down the river to special interest groups. The neo-cons that control the Republican Party today are hoping that rank and file conservatives will mindlessly vote for Bush, keeping their heads in the sand, until it’s too late and they’ve developed a new constituency to keep them in power. That new constituency will consist of newly married Log Cabin Republicans (gays), welfare dependents sucking up to the new government tit on the right, and amnestied illegals now eligible to vote (as well as more readily able to take your job because they’ll work for less, especially since you’re being taxed to pay their government supplementals that maintain their standard of living).

Establishment Republicans are coming out and trying to silence the uproar over Bush’s amnesty plan for illegals. The establishment types (neo-cons) are telling conservatives to keep it down and ‘look at the long view, the big picture.’ What crap! How many times do conservatives have to compromise their values, their beliefs, their standards? Why do we always have to give in but we don’t see anyone else giving in?

The latest in the string of ‘keep your mouths shut’ articles I’ve seen was on GOPUSA, by the president and CEO of that organization, Bobby Eberle. The title of his article was ‘Bush-Bashing Conservatives Should Focus on the Big Picture.’ I wrote Mr. Eberle to inform him that conservatives were keeping the big picture, that it was Bush who wasn’t. To me, Eberle’s article, along with all the other ‘hey conservatives, keep quiet about how Bush isn’t conservative’ articles are proof that conservatives and traditionalists are the embarrassing, if needed, stepchildren of the Republican Party. That in itself tells you the Republican Party is not conservative any more.

Given a laundry list of items, would any principled conservative vote for someone who: Continuously increases government spending, driving us deeper into debt; expands central government power over the states; undermines the Bill of Rights with bills such as the USA Patriot Act; cuts deals with other countries that undermine our economy via so-called free trade deals that only go one way (only out with our jobs and only in with products); wants to give millions of criminals (illegal aliens) a pass, thus not only blurring our boarder, but driving wages down and encouraging even more illegals to flood our markets in hopes of yet another amnesty a few years down the road? This is George Bush. He is no conservative. Why vote for a liberal in Republican clothing?

There was a political shift over the last twenty years in the South, as Southerners woke up to the fact that the Democratic Party had been taken over by socialists and no longer represented their interests, thus causing the huge migration to the ‘Party of Reagan.’ Southerners, and other conservatives and traditionalists, need to wake up to the fact that the Republican Party is morphing into merely an evil twin of the Democratic Party, and they need to migrate to another political entity. It could even happen this election year. The key is not which party conservatives and traditionalists are with, but that they stand by their ideals, stand on principle. The neo-cons have already shown that conservatives don’t have a seat at the table in the Republican Party, so why cast our lot with them?

Here’s something else to consider: Even if the House of Representatives kill this amnesty plan of Bush’s, and the establishment Republicans wink at conservatives and traditionalists saying, “Hey, we knew it wouldn’t pass, we just wanted to influence Hispanic votes by acting like we care,” don’t buy it. If the plan goes down to defeat this summer, once Bush gets re-elected in November you can bet it will be back with a vengeance, and the House and Senate will pass the amnesty plan. Nothing in the past 10 years, since the ‘Republican Revolution,’ shows me that the Republicans are conservative or mean anything they say concerning supporting conservative positions. No, there won’t be a socialist getting my vote this year, be he Democrat or be he Republican. As for me, I’ll be voting conservative, which means most likely the Constitution Party. I’m not throwing my vote away; Bush threw it away with everything he and the neo-cons have done for the last four years.

29 January 2004

Jeff Adams

[Tamzee]

Be advised...many of these "conservatives" are doing George Soros' work and collecting George Soros' shilling.

I've wondered... they really seem so irrational :-(

I can't imagine anyone bright enough to be a conservative would actually believe some of the nonsense they are spewing.

My main objective isn't really to convince any of these "all or nothing" purists, though, I waste my time talking to them because there might be lurkers on the site who could fall for this garbage. I am ashamed to admit I fell for it myself in 1992... I was a political moron and had purist conservative friends saying we had to "send a message to the GOP".

[carton253]

And?

You don't get to decide what gets posted and what doesn't.

LOL!

[Tamzee]

Oh Glory... your chart spells it all out beautifully, thanks!

[xrp]

I like the vacation packages!

[Poohbah]

Common sense says that when one throws a stick at a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who got hit.

I throw a stick...and you yelped.

Interesting.

[Abe Froman]

"I would agree if the situation wasn't so tenuous. I believe the War on Terror is the number one priority for the next 10 years. The threat of Islamic terror must be defeated. There is only one candidate running for President, with a legitimate chance of winning, who will continue the fight. I will not give the Democrats the opportunity to make 2 possibly 3 appointments to the Supreme Court either, which is what your strategy of "deal with in now rather than later" will accomplish. So, I may have a pain in my body... but I will not cut my nose off to spite my face in hopes that is the cure."

Some people here need to be reminded that the Founders considered some things to be more important than death. Evidently some cutting and pasting are in order:

"Those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."---Ben Franklin

"Live free or die, death is not the worst of evils."---General John Stark

"Give me liberty or give me death."---Patrick Henry


Your chance at dying in a car accident remains exponentially higher than being killed in a terrorist incident, so, to begin with, this is highly misplaced concern. Moreover, I would rather deal with the uncertainty of terrorist attack than live in servitude to my government masters, whether that government is run by men with an (R) or a (D) next to their name. Since it has been shown that neither are concerned about my Constitutional rights and the limits placed on the federal government, I am willing to make the sacrifice neccessary to tell them that. The difference between Bush and the Dems is so negligible from my perspective that it is a non-sacrifice. Tyranny signed into law by a Republican is still tyranny (massive wealth redistribution, unprecedented shredding of the Constitution with support for gun bans, CFR, and Patriot Acts, and [flame me I don't care] a needless "foreign military adventure" in the mideast.)

Now, if I would rather die in defense of my freedoms and those of my descendants than live on my knees to ensure than the tyrant has an (R) next to his name, it's obviously little or no sacrifice to me to live under a (D) to simply show the (R)s that they are no better.

[Peach]

Even though I was on the wrong thread, glad you like the graphics. Sorry they took up so much space and aren't quite on topic, although these days all the topics seem to be the same - Bash Bush.

[Protagoras]

Your posts are degenerating into desperate name calling. Predictable after watching you get taken apart by your superiors.

[Tamzee]

Large graphic posts of off-topic material tend to distract discussion.

You've shown yourself to be an utter fraud with that one statement, OWK. Peach's entire chart is pointing to areas where Bush has conservative values.... no matter how you sputter about where he lands on the political spectrum, it's obvious you could care less.

I bet you're one of those really SPECIAL folks that gets irritated when Bush DOES do something entirely conservative...

Who did you vote for in 2000?

[tpaine]

Yeh. LeVay knows all the hot spots, while Soros spas are from Hungary.

[Tamzee]

Well, it was very ON-topic relating to the specific folks on this thread who insist Bush is a "leftist". That chart shows many areas where he stands firmly on the right.

[EllaMinnow]

I liked the graphics. They're chock full of information.

Those who complain are just afraid they might catch a dose of reality.

[hchutch]

Am I?

Business interests and the pro-life movement were some of the President's most loyal backers. The Buchananites were, at best, latecomers to supporting Bush. Some never did.

In a dispute between a politician's most loyal supporters and the latecomers, who may have been reluctant, who do you think any politician would side with and be more likely to stick his neck out for?

Why do you think the Democrats did the NAACP's bidding on the nominees for the Sixth Circuit (as the memos leaked to the Wall Street Journal prove)? Because the NAACP is one of the most LOYAL backers of the Democrats and they delivered, so the Dems HAD to deliver by holding up the nominations until the Michigan affirmative action case was decided.

[Tamzee]

Common sense says that when one throws a stick at a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who got hit.

Oh, BRAVO..... I do so LOVE the way you make a point :-)

[Protagoras]

Well said.

It might also be pointed out on a more nuts and bolts basis that if one lives in certain liberal states which are never carried by Republicans in presidential elections, there is no down side to voting for someone other than the Republican.

[Peach]

LOL.

[ChadGore]

For the record, it's called the conservative movement.

"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow conservative."
-- Reagans Law

[Dead Corpse]

Now, if I would rather die in defense of my freedoms and those of my descendants than live on my knees to ensure than the tyrant has an (R) next to his name, it's obviously little or no sacrifice to me to live under a (D) to simply show the (R)s that they are no better.

(sarcasm)
Naw... that just means you are obviously just a troll.
(/sarcasm)

Some people will never see the forest, even if a tree falls on them. I wonder what is gonna happen when these Bushbots wake up and realize that "conservatism" is dead, the GOP has become the DNC, and the Dems have given up all pretense and openly run as communists. Only 11% of the population of the colonies fought against the King. The rest thought they could appease their way out of a bad spot.

Looks like the real Patriots in America are becoming as rare as their forefathers.

[Dead Corpse]

Common sense says that when one throws a stick at a pack of dogs, the one who yelps is the one who got hit.

So when we point out that Bush isn't exactly a stellar conservative, and you idjits jump all over us... you must have gotten hit with the stick then right?

[dmzTahoe]

"No, because the Conservative movement doesn't advocate electing Democrats as some here have. "

You're right. The conservative movement advocates electing conservatives, even if it means rejecting a Republican (pseudo-conservative).